Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was unable to attend yesterday's vote on the nomination of R. Alexander Acosta to be Secretary of Labor. Had I been able to attend, I would have opposed the nomination.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor Michigan farmers. Agriculture is a vital part of Michigan's economy. In fact, Michigan is home to more than 51,000 farms that contribute over $100 billion to our Nation's economy. Michigan is also the second most diverse agricultural producer in the Nation, growing more than 300 commodities, including a significant portion of our Nation's milk, corn, cherries, cucumbers, and much more.

Last week I had the pleasure of visiting the Iciek Dairy Farm in Gladwin, MI. It was incredible to see firsthand how this family-run dairy has grown from a small farm of a few dozen cows to a large, modern dairy operation with 700 cows and seven full-time employees.

Today, the Iciek Dairy works with the Michigan State University Extension program to help mentor new businesses and farmers who are just starting off with their own small dairy operation. Michigan's farmers and farmers all across our country feed our country and people around the globe, and we must do what we can to support them. Our agricultural businesses rely on the ability to access the resources they need to keep growing, creating jobs, and contributing to our economy.

Access to these resources can be especially challenging for new small farm operations that are just getting started, including those small farms that make up 82 percent of Michigan's agricultural producers. Small farms that are just starting up or are facing tough economic conditions sometimes struggle to find and secure affordable credit. That is why I am working across the aisle with Senator Tillis to urge congressional appropriators to fully fund the Farm Service Agency loan programs as Congress considers government funding bills for 2018.

The Farm Service Agency works with lenders to guarantee and deliver small dollar loans to the small farms that need them the most. When a farm has no other options, Farm Service Agency loans and guarantees can help farmers cover urgent operating costs for feed, seed, and fertilizer to get them through the season. Without these loans, farmers could lose their ability to purchase equipment and other necessities for the planting season and could be forced to curtail their operations.

Currently, more than 2,300 farms in Michigan have Farm Service Agency loans totaling over $630 million. Across the country last year, the Farm Service Agency made and guaranteed a total of 39,650 loans totaling $6.3 billion. It is critical that Farm Service Agency funding reflect expected demand for loans so that small farms can continue to have this crucial lifeline.

This program is in such high demand that just last year the Farm Service Agency ran out of money to finance its operating loans, including more than 1,000 loans that had already been approved for small farmers. This led to a backlog of loans, and farmers were forced to wait for months until Congress passed emergency funding to get the loans they needed for their day-to-day operations.

Access to capital is critical across a range of businesses, but it is incredibly important to our farmers. They can lose out on an entire growing season if they cannot buy the equipment and the supplies they need while they wait for Congress to fund the Farm Service Agency.

Today, ensuring that the Farm Service Agency has sufficient funding is even more critical, especially following President Trump's proposed $4.7 billion cut to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Like our small businesses, students, and families, America's farmers deserve to have affordable loan options, and they deserve our attention and our support. I urge my colleagues to join me in asking for robust Farm Service Agency funding so we can continue to support our farming communities as they support and sustain us each and every day.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the U.S. Supreme Court is a pillar of our Nation's democracy, and I take very seriously the Senate's responsibility to advise and consent on nominees to serve in this revered institution. Our constitutional democracy is a system of checks and balances with three coequal branches of government. Each branch is intended to serve as a check on the other two.

If congressional Republicans are unwilling or unable to check President Trump, this leaves our courts as the last line of defense against an administration that is committed to expanding the already vast power that is provided to the Executive.

We have seen this play out over the past 2 months as President Trump has twice rolled out unconstitutional travel bans only to have Federal courts stop their implementation. The President's reaction was telling. He lashed out at the ``so-called `judge' '' and urged his Twitter followers to blame not only the judge who stayed a travel ban but the entire Federal court system should an attack occur.

Judge Gorsuch wants us all to know that he found these attacks on the judiciary ``disheartening.'' He told me as much when we met. He made a point to use the same language when in meetings with a number of my colleagues. Personally, I would say that these attacks on the judicial branch are more than disheartening--they are appalling, and I would say they are dangerous.

Judge Gorsuch is, by all accounts--and in my opinion--a good man, but as I have reviewed Judge Gorsuch's record and previous rulings, I have to say that I find them disheartening.

I find it disheartening that he has regularly sided against everyday Americans' rights, including women's reproductive rights, workers' rights, and civil rights. I find it disheartening that, instead of allowing women access to basic healthcare, Judge Gorsuch authored a concurring decision that argued that corporations have religious beliefs.

Yes, we all know that corporate law creates a legal fiction of personhood, but let's be real. Corporations are not people. They are not humans, and I have never sat next to a corporation at church. Corporations do not have religious beliefs. To say otherwise defies common sense.

Judge Gorsuch's ruling and the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., is a dangerous step backward for women's health. This ruling puts corporations before people and could leave women in Michigan and across the country without access to essential healthcare services. This decision is a step backward for women. It is, instead, a step forward for the growing power that corporations have in this country. Courts not only serve as a check against a powerful executive branch, but they are supposed to put individuals on a level playing field against large, powerful corporations.

I am disheartened that Judge Gorsuch was the only Tenth Circuit judge to rule against a Detroit truckdriver who was unfairly fired for not staying in his disabled trailer after waiting for hours in dangerously cold weather. In a 2-to-1 decision in TransAm Trucking v. DOL, Judge Gorsuch ruled that TransAm Trucking

was in the right when it fired Alphonse Maddin for walking away from his disabled semi instead of risking death by hypothermia.

I am also disheartened by Judge Gorsuch's ruling on accommodations for disabled students. In Thompson R2-J School District v. Luke P., Judge Gorsuch ruled that schools only need to provide meager accommodations to satisfy the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

During Judge Gorsuch's confirmation hearing, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that ruled unanimously against his position. Even the most conservative judges on the Court overruled him.

Chief Justice John Roberts powerfully wrote:

When all is said and done, a student offered an educational

program providing ``merely more than de minimis'' progress

from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an

education at all.

Whether it is ruling against children who want an equal opportunity to get a quality education or women who want access to healthcare or a truckdriver who simply wants to make it home safely at the end of his shift, I am disheartened that Judge Gorsuch often fails to take into account the human face behind each case.

The U.S. Supreme Court is often the last line of defense for everyday Americans, and Judge Gorsuch's previous rulings indicate he believes that corporations have greater rights than individuals. As millions have been spent by the corporate elite in support of his nomination to the Supreme Court, the judge has failed to acknowledge how deeply the Citizens United decision has corrupted our government by opening the floodgates for special interest money to pour into our elections.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will tell you that Judge Gorsuch is a mainstream judge. I would argue that most Michiganders do not consider the Koch brothers or the Heritage Foundation to be mainstream. Mainstream Michiganders would tell you that our winters can be bitter cold and that you cannot sit in a stalled vehicle for hours without risking life and limb. They would tell you that corporations are not people and, therefore, do not have religious beliefs. They would tell you that all children deserve a chance at a quality education.

A lot of my colleagues will be discussing Senate procedures and rules and precedent in the coming days, and I will simply say this: Michiganders and all Americans deserve a true mainstream, consensus Supreme Court Justice who can earn broad bipartisan support and not merely squeak by.

Now, more than ever, we need the Supreme Court to be our Nation's North Star, not a weathervane that responds to rapidly shifting political winds.

Serving on the Supreme Court requires more than education, more than experience, and more than a pleasant demeanor. A Supreme Court Justice must have sound judicial philosophy and the ability to interpret the law as intended by the Constitution and by the Congress.

I am extremely concerned that Judge Gorsuch's judicial approach is out of step with mainstream Michigan values, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the resolution of disapproval that is currently before the Senate, which would decimate Federal title X funding for healthcare providers across our Nation who provide vital preventive care and family planning services.

Let me put it in simpler terms. Republicans in Congress are once again rushing to advance legislation that will make it harder for Michiganians to get the healthcare they need. Just last week, we saw Speaker Ryan and President Trump in their efforts to take away healthcare from 24 million Americans and to defund Planned Parenthood, but this is a new week, and we are seeing a new assault on healthcare.

Today's resolution is just the latest in a long series of attacks against Planned Parenthood. A vote for this legislation is a vote to make it harder for millions of Americans to access birth control, cancer screenings, and testing for sexually transmitted infections.

``Title X funding'' sounds arcane, but it is actually pretty straightforward. It is a bipartisan program which was established more than 40 years ago and which provides individuals with family planning and preventive health services. Not one penny covers abortion. Let me say that again. Not one penny covers abortion--not one. This is established Federal law, and anyone who says otherwise is simply lying to you or has no idea of what he is talking about.

We should take a step back and ask, what can we agree on here? I think every Senator would agree that we want to reduce unintended pregnancies and teen pregnancies and save money and prevent cancer. Today, unfortunately, we are voting to do the opposite.

Right now, we have the lowest rate of teen pregnancies in our Nation's history, and we are getting ready to heavily restrict a successful program that saves $7 for every public dollar invested. Preventive screenings are quick, affordable, and save lives. Cancer devastates families, ends lives, and is expensive to treat. Historically, low teen pregnancy rates have not happened in a vacuum; they have happened because of concerted efforts to promote education and prevention and give women a say in their own health.

The pain inflicted today will not be felt uniformly; it will disproportionately hurt people in rural and underserved areas in which these clinics are more often than not the primary sources of healthcare. Michigan has 19 Planned Parenthood clinics, and half are located in areas that are federally designated as ``rural and medically underserved.'' As a direct result of title X funds, Michigan family planning clinics prevent over 18,000 unintended pregnancies and over 1,000 cases of sexually transmitted diseases and cervical cancer each and every year.

Every woman has a fundamental right to make her decisions about her reproductive health. The government has absolutely no right to stand in her way. I strongly oppose this resolution and implore just one more of my Republican colleagues to join me in stopping this misguided effort.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Michigan is a State that builds things. We invented the auto industry and created a new era of manufacturing. My State saw the American labor movement grow and fight to deliver the 40- hour workweek and safe workplace conditions. In Michigan, we work hard, and after a lifetime of hard work, we expect to be able to retire with dignity.

The American dream can mean different things to different people, but I believe there are some universal elements. We all want our children to prosper and see more opportunity than we have had. While we all need to have a secure retirement, we dream of passing on to the next generation--whether it is a small business or a family farm, a home with the mortgage paid off, or a nest egg that has been built up over many decades. I fear this piece of the American dream--the ability to enjoy a comfortable retirement on the strength of your lifetime earnings--is slipping further and further away for increasing numbers of Americans.

The measures we are considering this week, which would repeal the Department of Labor's safe harbor for States and municipalities developing retirement plans, would be a step backwards. Generations ago, Congress heard the American people and agreed that it was simply unacceptable for retired and elderly Americans to live in poverty. The solution that followed was Social Security, perhaps the most effective anti-poverty program ever created.

Today, we must meet that challenge once again. We must preserve and strengthen Social Security, and I will fight for that every day that I am here in the Senate. But a modern, comprehensive retirement policy must be more than just a safety net. It must be a ladder to prosperity. A ladder provides a sturdy frame to help people climb and reach new heights, if they are willing to put forth the effort.

Unfortunately, far too many Americans lack access to private savings plans. Traditional defined-benefit plans--the pensions our parents and their parents relied on--are now providing historically low rates. Now, more than ever, expanded access to defined-contribution workplace retirement accounts is critical to our Nation's economic future. Solving the retirement crisis is a complicated puzzle, but one of the most important pieces is access.

Ninety percent of Americans with access to a workplace plan report saving for retirement, while just 20 percent of those without access to a plan say they have saved. Although this difference should be as clear as night and day to everybody, only about half of private sector workers have access to a 401(k) retirement plan. This leaves nearly 60 million Americans without access to a workplace plan. Make no mistake, the numbers are clear. Workers without access are disproportionately low-income and minority workers.

In an effort to address this sweeping problem, States and municipalities have begun work to create their own programs to support retirement savings programs for workers. Recognizing that States are truly the laboratories of democracy, the Obama administration's Department of Labor put forth policies providing safe harbors to States moving forward with these innovative programs.

Today, instead of working on a bipartisan infrastructure package or legislation to support American workers and small businesses, we are debating the use of a fast-track procedure to undo these new policies and make it harder for cities and States to help tackle the retirement savings gap. If a State or city has a good idea that is helping Americans--all Americans--save for retirement, I think that is great. Why are we blocking States from creating innovative solutions? We should allow these programs to move forward so we can help workers responsibly save their hard-earned money. We should also allow these programs to move forward to see what actually works. The Federal Government certainly does not have a monopoly on good ideas, and States and cities cannot be the laboratories of democracy if we tie their hands. We need big ideas, we need small ideas, and, frankly, we need good ideas so we can get to work with what we need to do to solve this incredibly difficult problem.

A secure retirement cannot become a relic of the past. But this foundational piece of the American dream will only be true for this generation of workers

if we start working on these solutions now. As our Nation wrestles with growing income inequality, we cannot weaken our ladders to prosperity and pull out the rungs that help hardworking families take the next steps upward. Solving the retirement crisis is about empowering workers to do the right thing for their families and for their future, and repealing these Department of Labor safe harbors will only move us in the wrong direction.

I urge my colleagues to oppose these resolutions of disapproval.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, sovereign nations across the globe are brought together by different unifying forces. It can be a shared heritage, language, religion, or outside historical forces that led to borders drawn decades or centuries ago.

As a nation, we are unique. We are diverse in every sense of the word, but even in these polarizing times, we are overwhelmingly unified. We are unified by our belief in democracy, free enterprise, and economic opportunity. We are all entrusted in nurturing the ideas enshrined in our Constitution--the idea that our system of democratic government enables us to work toward a more perfect union. At a time when the promise of democracy is receding for far too many around the world, we must do everything we can to uphold our country's free and fair elections, the foundation of our democracy.

Our elections should serve as a global benchmark for the peaceful transition of power. As President Reagan said, we must be ``the shining city upon the hill,'' and we must lead by example. Our elections require a strong and steady commitment from our newly naturalized citizens; from families whose families fought in the Revolutionary War; from volunteers who cover 16-hour shifts to keep polling locations open; from country, city, and township clerks.

The preservation of free and fair elections requires a strong commitment from our highest elected official in the land. As Americans, we look to the President of the United States to safeguard our democracy from foreign adversaries.

When we are presented with clear and mounting evidence that the Russian Government, at the personal discretion of Russian President Vladimir Putin, orchestrated a campaign to undermine this most fundamental institution and interfere in our election, we should expect nothing less than a clear and forceful response from the White House that this kind of behavior is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, what we have seen from President Trump and the White House so far amounts to little more than confusion, evasion, and a whole lot of smoke.

President Trump has spoken time and again about wanting to build closer ties with Russia. On the campaign trail, he frequently fawned over Putin's strength as a leader. In 2013, he asked his Twitter followers, ``Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow--if so, will he become my new best friend?''

While I don't believe that Putin attended the pageant, the nature of the Putin-Trump relationship remains an open question. It confuses me and quite frankly alarms me that President Trump speaks so fondly of a man who brutally cracks down on his political opponents and journalists at home while stirring up conflict and aggressions abroad.

Make no mistake, Vladimir Putin is no friend of the United States or of the American people. Our Nation's intelligence agencies agree with high confidence that his government orchestrated a campaign to undermine the integrity of our recent election, and Putin has sought at every turn to destabilize the international order that has kept the American people and our allies secure for decades.

Russia's interference in our election was not an isolated incident. It is part of a broader effort to undermine the NATO alliance and weaken western democracies. I heard from our French and German allies at the Munich Security Conference last month about their concerns that Russia will continue to engage in disinformation campaigns in European elections. As we aspire to be the free-market driven, democratic ``city upon a hill,'' Putin's government works to sow chaos globally in an effort to further consolidate power in his nationalist, self-enriching regime.

These attempts to destabilize Russia's neighbors and rivals are not limited to cyber space and computer code. These provocations involve military aircraft, ships, nuclear capable missiles, heavy artillery, drones, and efforts to redraw international borders.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I believe that the highest duty of Congress is to keep Americans safe. Russia's dangerous and unprofessional military provocations not only place American servicemembers and NATO allies at risk, they endanger civilian lives and raise the specter of escalating regional conflict.

Just last month, Russian aircraft flew within a few hundred feet of the USS Porter in international waters in a dangerous mock attack--an action the ship's captain called out as ``unsafe and unprofessional.''

Last summer, while on a congressional delegation to meet with NATO allies, I heard directly from Estonian leaders about Russia's blatant disregard for their sovereignty. Russian forces kidnapped a border guard in Estonian territory and sentenced him behind closed doors to 15 years in prison, in what a top European Union official called ``a clear violation of international law.''

We have seen the Russians fly reconnaissance and fighter jets in international airspace, with their transponders switched off in order to avoid detection--at one point, nearly colliding in midair with a passenger airplane. NATO has been forced to scramble jets almost 800 times--let me repeat

that: 800 times--in 2016 alone, just to respond to Russia's encroachments on NATO airspace.

As the President speaks glowingly about Putin, Mr. Putin returns the favor by deploying a dangerous new cruise missile, in clear violation of the Reagan-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Simultaneously, a Russian spy ship has been spotted lurking off the U.S. coast, trying to gather intelligence information near the Navy's primary east coast submarine base.

We are also seeing Russia undertake the largest military buildup in the Arctic since the end of the Cold War and at a pace faster than we ever, ever saw during the Soviet era.

Russia is reopening defunct military outposts and building new ones all across the polar region. There are 13 new Russian airfields that are scheduled to open by the end of this year. The Russian military recently staged an exercise in the Arctic region with well over 12,000 troops.

As the Russians build up their forces in the Arctic, the United States is falling behind. Our principal maritime force in the Arctic is the U.S. Coast Guard, but they have only one heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, that is capable of keeping Arctic shipping lanes open or conducting search and rescue missions year-round. A new icebreaker to replace the Polar Star is still a few years away.

In contrast, the Russians have over 40 icebreakers in their fleet, many of them nuclear, with plans for three new icebreakers underway. At a time when we should be investing in our Arctic capabilities, the Trump administration has been considering deep cuts to the Coast Guard's budget.

Russia's expansionist activities and military probing are not occurring in a vacuum. The numerous threats and provocations that I have outlined occur as Russia continues to wage war in eastern Ukraine in the wake of their illegal annexation of Crimea, destabilizing the opportunity for the Ukrainian people to chart their own political and economic destiny. There are 10,000 people who have lost their lives in this conflict as a direct result of Russian aggression.

Last year, as I traveled with my Senate colleagues to Estonia, the Czech Republic, and Ukraine, I learned firsthand about the efforts in these countries to strengthen their civil institutions and root out corruption, build lasting partnerships, and stand up to Russian provocations. While they are doing their part, they continue to look to the United States for global leadership.

This year, U.S. troops deployed to Eastern Europe to demonstrate our ironclad commitment to our NATO allies, where they were welcomed with open arms. We are working with our partners in Iceland to enhance their capabilities to detect and respond to a recent increase in Russian submarine patrols.

I am also proud to stand with the airmen of the 127th Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard, who deployed from my State to build on their long record of successful cooperation with our partners in Latvia.

When the Kremlin is threatening our allies, buzzing our Navy warships, and meddling in foreign elections, now is not the time to call into question the commitment or the resolve of the United States of America.

Vladimir Putin's world view is shaped by his time in the KGB during the Cold War. He is committed to projecting Russian strength, both at home and abroad, through intimidation and aggression. Strength is what he respects. If Putin's provocations are not met with a strong response, they will continue and likely escalate, putting American interests and the American people at risk.

Top officials in the Trump administration have been dispatched to crisscross Europe and reassure the world of our commitments to global security. I joined Vice President Pence and Secretary Mattis in Germany last month for the annual Munich Security Conference.

They spoke of America's commitment to NATO and the international order, which was built from the ashes of World War II, in an apparent attempt to reassure our nervous allies, but our allies are not trying to understand the aims of the Mattis administration or the Pence administration. They are trying to determine if President Trump will stand behind NATO and the institutions that have served as a counterweight to Russian aggression for decades.

The American people are also watching the White House, and they deserve to know that those who serve at the highest levels of government will always have America's best interests at heart. But every week we are faced with mounting evidence that the Trump administration and the Trump campaign have ties to Russia and are working to cover up their interactions with Russian officials.

Earlier this week, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, FBI Director Comey announced that the FBI was ``investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian Government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.'' This bears repeating. The FBI Director has confirmed that there is an active investigation into coordination between a Presidential campaign and a foreign adversary. This is just the latest development in a long string of disturbing revelations about President Trump's associates.

Ousted campaign chairman Paul Manafort has a deep web of business and political connections to Russian interests. Other campaign advisers have backed off previous claims that they never spoke with Russian officials. In fact, the coverup of these interactions has already resulted in the first resignation from the Trump administration.

Not long after President Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian officials and military intelligence agencies that were responsible for interfering in our election, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn had a secret, off-the-record discussion with Russian Ambassador Kislyak, in which he discussed lifting these sanctions under the incoming Trump administration.

Top officials at the Justice Department clearly warned the White House that Mr. Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. He resigned only after it became clear that he misled the public and the Vice President about the substance of these off-the-record conversations.

But it doesn't just end there.

The Attorney General, at best, misled the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings about his record of contact with Russian officials. He testified under oath that he ``did not have communications with the Russians'' during the campaign. When it became clear that he had actually met with the Russian Ambassador at least twice last year, including in a one-on-one meeting in the final weeks of the campaign, he was forced to recuse himself from the Justice Department's criminal investigation into this very, very serious issue.

It has been my experience that, when people are caught covering up their meetings and contacts with someone, they usually have something to hide. If you have nothing to hide, there is no reason for a coverup.

The serious national security implications of the Trump administration's potential ties with Russia cannot be overstated. This is a time when we need to make clear that Russian aggression will not stand. Instead, the President has attempted to distract the public through unsubstantiated allegations about the wiretapping of Trump Tower--an allegation that has been refuted by FBI Director Comey and others. President Trump continues to double down by calling into question the motives of those who want assurances about integrity in our elections.

Let me be clear. This is not about partisan politics. When there is so much smoke, there is probably some fire somewhere. If another country is infiltrating our government and political institutions or if Vladimir Putin has favors to cash in from officials at the highest levels of government, that is a serious problem.

Russia has endangered our servicemembers, threatened our allies, illegally annexed Crimea, engaged in war crimes in their bombing of Aleppo, and actively worked to undermine our democracy. These revelations are only adding more smoke to the Russia fire, and it is clear we need a special prosecutor to investigate.

The American people expect this investigation to be free from any political interference or influence or bias. We need someone to cut through the smoke and clear the air. An independent special prosecutor should be appointed to examine Russia's campaign to interfere in our election as well as any association or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

I also believe that the time has come to create an independent, nonpartisan commission to fully investigate Russian interference. Earlier today, I cosponsored legislation introduced by Senator Cardin that would create such a commission and provide it with the necessary subpoena power to get the answers that the American people clearly deserve.

This is not about Democrats or Republicans or about relitigating the 2016 election. This is about our national security. This commission, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, would provide a comprehensive report on what occurred last year and make recommendations as to how we can best defend the integrity of future elections.

This is about how we move forward together. This is about how we maintain the independence of our government from foreign influence and instill faith in Americans that the White House is truly working for them.

This is about moving past months of coverups and finally extinguishing this smoldering Russian fire or proving that all of this smoke is, truly, just a series of misunderstandings.

This issue shakes the foundations of our democracy, but our Union has survived harder challenges than this.

At a time when the public's trust in government is called into question, we must do everything we can to restore faith in the integrity and the impartiality of our institutions.

Just as we, as Americans, are unified in our faith in democracy and economic opportunity, we are unified in our belief in the rule of law. Just as we must show strength abroad through our military and our alliances, we must show strength at home by rooting out corruption and protecting our democratic process.

All of us--Democrats and Republicans, Congress and the White House, our diplomats and our military--must send a clear, unified message to authoritarian leaders in Moscow and everywhere else that threats levied against the United States will never be tolerated and that there will be a price to pay for making them.

The American people expect us to keep them safe while strengthening our Republic against enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is our duty to prove that we are up to the job.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 86, the confirmation of the nomination of Seema Verma to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, I was not recorded because I was absent due to a flight delay. Had I been present, I would have voted nay.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the confirmation of Seema Verma as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as CMS.

As CMS Administrator, Ms. Verma would oversee healthcare coverage for more than 55 million seniors and disabled individuals in the Medicare Program. In addition, she would be the primary authority for the Medicaid Program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and our Nation's health insurance marketplace. Together, these programs cover over 70 million Americans.

I have serious concerns that if confirmed, Ms. Verma will pursue shortsighted changes to our healthcare system that could jeopardize care for working families, while providing huge benefits to corporate interests.

Ms. Verma has openly stated her desire to put insurance companies back in charge of our healthcare by allowing insurers to deny women maternity care coverage as an essential health benefit. She has also expressed support for proposals that would weaken essential health benefits that ensure coverage for mental healthcare, preventive screenings, and comprehensive pediatric care for children. These comprehensive services form the backbone of the healthcare system that invests in preventive care, improving outcomes, lowering costs, and puts consumers in charge of their own healthcare. Ms. Verma is proposing to take us back to the days when insurance companies were in control and when they would tell you what was best, not you or your doctor.

She has also expressed support for dangerous and radical proposals that would change Medicare as we know it. I believe that when it comes to Medicare, our future CMS Administrator should be doing everything he or she can to strengthen an incredibly successful program. Ms. Verma, instead, supports policies that reduce the quality of care and increase costs on older Americans.

Our Nation's seniors have worked hard their entire lives. We owe them a secure and dignified retirement. When Congress was first debating the Affordable Care Act in 2009, I heard from seniors who had split their pills in half or would forgo their prescriptions altogether just to put food on their table. This is simply unacceptable in this great country of ours.

It is important to remember that the Affordable Care Act extended the solvency of Medicare by more than a decade, while simultaneously bringing down prescription drug costs for seniors. Because of improvements to Medicare in the Affordable Care Act, the average senior in Michigan saved over $1,000 on prescription drug costs in 2015.

While this shows the success the ACA has had in helping older Americans, there is still much more work to do. We must keep moving forward to strengthen and improve Medicare. I am concerned Ms. Verma will move us backward.

During her confirmation hearing, she failed to express her opposition to proposals that would increase Medicare's eligibility age. This means that Michigan's construction workers, nurses, and autoworkers would need to spend more years on their feet before they see the coverage they have earned.

Ms. Verma provided no clear direction on what she will do to strengthen the Medicare Program, and I am concerned that she sees older Americans as just one more line on a budget. These Americans have worked hard their entire lives, and the very last thing we should be doing is making cuts at their expense. Instead, we should focus on proven advances in technology that improve Medicare and cut costs without jeopardizing care for seniors and disabled individuals.

I worked with my colleagues in Congress to introduce bipartisan proposals that will do just that. For example, Medicare spends one out of every three dollars on diabetes treatment. The total economic cost of diabetes is estimated to be $245 billion every year. I have introduced bipartisan legislation that allows Medicare to enroll individuals at risk for developing diabetes into medical nutrition therapy services proven to decrease the likelihood they will develop diabetes in the first place. I have also introduced bipartisan legislation that expands Medicare's use of telemedicine, increasing access for patients in rural and underserved communities and bringing down future health costs by ensuring patients get the preventive care they need to stay healthy.

I will keep working to improve and modernize our healthcare system without sacrificing care for the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, I do not believe Ms. Verma shares this commitment. I am voting against Ms. Verma's nomination because our seniors and working families deserve a CMS Administrator who is fighting to improve their healthcare, not one who merely sees them as a budgetary obligation.

I will oppose her confirmation, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield 35 minutes of my postcloture debate time to Senator Wyden.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I stand today to express my opposition to the nomination of Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Pruitt's track record does not demonstrate a commitment to addressing critical natural resource issues.

As Oklahoma's attorney general, he joined forces with polluters to sue the Environmental Protection Agency again and again, to undermine the safeguards for clean air and for clean water.

I am also dismayed he has not yet committed to recusing himself on those pending lawsuits, if confirmed. Not once, not one single time has he pressed the EPA for more action to protect public health or the environment. He has defined his career by undermining laws that prevent people from getting sick and safeguard the environment from degradation.

In addition, Mr. Pruitt refuses to release thousands of emails related to his ties to special interests, including corporations that may have donated to his political campaigns. These connections to very big energy interests are relevant, given Mr. Pruitt's history of copying and pasting industry requests directly onto his attorney general office's letterhead.

It is very difficult to fully evaluate his record without these emails made public. Just yesterday, an Oklahoma State district judge ruled that Mr. Pruitt's office will have until Tuesday to turn over these emails.

Unfortunately, the Senate will vote on his nomination in just a moment, before these documents are released, and give the American people an opportunity to see what they contain.

I would strongly urge that the nomination vote be postponed until these emails are released, and they can be fully considered. The EPA Administrator must be someone who is committed to improving and enforcing laws and regulations that safeguard clean air and clean water for all Americans.

Mr. Pruitt's record of undermining critical health and environmental protections demonstrate that he is simply not the right person to lead the EPA. I urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Representative Mulvaney to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget because I have deep concerns about his record.

I believe his far-right views are out of the mainstream and wrong for our Nation and wrong for the people of Michigan.

In part, my vote against his nomination is due to his long-held public belief that we should balance the Federal budget on the backs of seniors and retirees who have worked their entire lives. Representative Mulvaney's policies would mean raising the retirement age, making deep cuts in Medicare, and driving up costs for seniors who already struggle to afford the care they need. These are policy proposals that Mr. Mulvaney would bring to the highest levels of government, if confirmed, and I fundamentally disagree with his approach to budget policy.

While I disagreed with a number of Representative Mulvaney's positions when we served together in the U.S. House of Representatives, I entered his confirmation hearing with an open mind. I thought that in preparing for a role with broad jurisdiction over the Federal Government, he might have developed more nuanced views on some of these difficult issues. However, after speaking with Representative Mulvaney during our recent hearing and reviewing his responses to my colleagues, it is clear he will bring the same extreme views to the administration that he brought to the Congress.

On Social Security, which is absolutely critical to seniors and families across the State of Michigan, Representative Mulvaney has repeatedly called for congressional action to raise the retirement age and reduce benefits. He has publicly called Social Security

a ``Ponzi scheme.'' When I asked Representative Mulvaney about his views during this hearing, he confirmed to me that raising the retirement age is a central piece of what he calls Social Security reform.

I could not disagree more. Michigan workers have worked their entire lives and have contributed out of their paycheck to the Social Security trust fund. I simply cannot vote for someone who takes pride in telling these Michiganders--construction workers, nurses, autoworkers--that they need to spend another 5 years on their feet after a lifetime of hard work.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, and labeling it as such shows callous indifference to Michigan families. Social Security is one of the most successful programs in our Nation's history. Confirming Congressman Mulvaney to lead the Office of Management and Budget is a direct threat to the financial security of millions of seniors and retirees.

If you believe Mr. Mulvaney's proposals on Social Security are wrongheaded, just wait until you hear his views on Medicare. He has vowed to ``end Medicare as we know it.'' He has said the plans of House Speaker Paul Ryan, which called for drastic cuts to Medicare, didn't go far enough.

During the first term of President Reagan, a saying entered into the public discourse as the newly elected President was staffing up his administration: ``Personnel is policy.''

While President Trump said on the campaign trail that he opposes changes to Social Security and Medicare, personnel is policy. While the title of the job, ``Director of the Office of Management and Budget,'' might conjure up images of a bureaucratic backwater for many Americans, make no mistake, we are currently debating who will hold one of the most powerful positions in this new administration--and personnel is policy.

Let's be clear. Congressman Mulvaney's nomination presents a direct threat to Medicare and to Social Security. While his positions on these critical programs are enough to warrant my ``no'' vote, let's examine how we might address other aspects of the Federal budget.

We don't need to work at the Office of Management and Budget or be an accountant to know that President Trump's budget priorities simply do not add up. The Federal debt and deficit are serious issues, but we haven't seen one serious proposal from this administration on how we reach fiscal sustainability. It is the job of the OMB Director to help bring some sense to these proposals.

What are the proposals? They include $10 trillion in tax cuts; $40 billion on a border wall--with some kind of IOU from Mexico; drastically increasing defense spending; $1 trillion on infrastructure; and a campaign promise to never, ever touch Social Security and Medicare.

It simply doesn't add up. Either President Trump is planning to grow our debt and deficit to dangerous levels or he is going to ask his advisers which of his many campaign promises he should break. Given Representative Mulvaney's belief that deficits can be solved by cutting benefits for seniors and slashing investments in basic science and research, he is not the person I want in the position of OMB Director.

This role is also not just about expenditures and revenue. As a senior member of the President's economic team, you need a steady hand to help lead the government of the world's largest economy. Given the disarray that we are now seeing in the White House, I am convinced now more than ever that Representative Mulvaney is not that steady hand to help lead fiscal policy in this Nation.

In 2013, Representative Mulvaney supported and helped lead the effort for a government shutdown. Let me repeat: He helped lead the effort to shut down the U.S. Government. More specifically, he helped lead the effort to shut down the government because the Senate would not agree to defund Planned Parenthood.

In his confirmation hearing, he had a chance to explain this position. Our ranking member, Senator McCaskill, asked him flat out: Do you still believe that the 2013 government shutdown was good policy?

His response: Yes, ma'am. It was polite, but wrong. Polite isn't enough. We simply cannot have these views in the highest levels of government.

This spring, on April 28, funding for the Federal government expires. Critical programs, from childcare to scientific research, will halt unless there is an agreement in place. It is hard to have confidence that this administration will come to a reasonable agreement when their nominee for the highest budget position believes it is ``good policy'' to shut down the Federal Government.

This will not be the first, or last, potential budgetary crisis the OMB Director could face. Sometime this summer, the U.S. Congress will need to address the debt ceiling in order to meet our previously agreed-to financial obligations. If we do not come to an agreement, the effects on the global economy will be devastating. We risk permanently downgrading our credit rating and setting off a worldwide financial crisis.

Representative Mulvaney on many occasions has doubted the need to raise the debt ceiling. He has doubted that the U.S. Government should meet our financial obligations. This makes me doubt his very basic qualifications to serve as the Director of OMB.

This is far beyond partisan politics. This is the fiscal health of our Nation that will be at stake--truly, the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. If Congressman Mulvaney, as the highest ranking budget official in the Nation, is not going to advocate on behalf of this commitment, who will?

I am also worried that Congressman Mulvaney simply lacks the ability to see how fiscal and financial decisions impact working people. He looks past them and doesn't give them a second thought. During his confirmation hearing, I offered Mr. Mulvaney the chance to explain why he did not pay payroll taxes for the nanny who took care of his children. To be frank, I was shocked by his response. To him, there was a ``differentiation,'' in his mind, between the employee who was spending 40 hours a week helping to raise his triplets and the employees who spent 40 hours a week in his law firm. To him, the white collar workers in his law firm were employees, and his nanny was not. I am shocked that Mr. Mulvaney did not realize that childcare is work, and it is some of the hardest, most important work there is. Whether a nanny, babysitter, or childcare provider, this employee mattered, and he looked past her and didn't give her a second thought--until he was nominated to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

I don't believe my colleagues should give him the opportunity to advance his extreme positions on Medicare and Social Security and look past hard-working Michiganders. I will oppose Representative Mulvaney's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to remember Michael ``Mike'' Ilitch of Detroit, MI, founder of Little Caesars Pizza and owner of the Detroit Tigers and Detroit Red Wings. Sadly,

Mr. Ilitch passed away last week at the age of 87. Mr. Ilitch was enthusiastic about sports, passionate about the city of Detroit, and dedicated to his family.

Mr. Ilitch was born in Detroit, MI, on July 20, 1929, to Macedonian immigrants, Sotir and Sultana. After graduating from Cooley High School, Mr. Ilitch served 4 years in the U.S. Marine Corps before returning to Detroit to play minor league baseball for the Tigers. Following a knee injury, Mr. Ilitch worked as a door-to-door salesperson, selling awnings, pots, and pans, in order to save enough money to start his own business.

In 1959, Mr. Ilitch and his wife, Marian, opened their first pizza store in the Detroit suburb of Garden City: Little Caesars Pizza. While Mr. Ilitch initially named the pizzeria Pizza Treat, his wife Marian convinced him to change it to Little Caesar, her nickname for him. Over four decades, Mr. Ilitch expanded the business to approximately 4,000 stores across North America and parts of Europe. The chain became well- known for its commercial tagline, ``Pizza! Pizza!''

As Little Caesars grew to be one of the largest carryout pizza chains in the United States, Mr. Ilitch purchased the Detroit Red Wings hockey team in 1982, recognizing the great potential of a then failing team. By stocking the team with promising college players, Mr. Ilitch revitalized the Red Wings. Under Mr. Ilitch, the Red Wings won four Stanley Cup titles in 1997, 1998, 2002, and 2008, which led him to be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 2003, as well as the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame in 2004.

In 1992, Mr. Ilitch acquired the Detroit Tigers baseball team--the same team that contracted him in the minor leagues. The Tigers reached the World Series twice under Mr. Ilitch's stewardship in 2006 and 2012.

An icon and pillar of the community, Mr. Ilitch never lost faith in the resurgence of the city of Detroit and the resilience of the people he loved so much. During the city's most challenging times, he poured his heart and passion into Detroit's renaissance. Mr. Ilitch played an active role in the community, supporting local organizations and residents. In 1987, Mr. Ilitch and his wife bought and restored the historic Fox Theater, rejuvenating the entertainment scene in downtown Detroit. He privately assisted civil rights activist, Rosa Parks, paying her rent when she moved into the Riverfront Apartments in 1994. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs awarded Mr. Ilitch with the Secretary's Award for the ``Little Caesars Veteran Program,'' which provided business opportunities to nobly discharged war veterans.

As an entrepreneur, leader, and kindhearted family man, Mr. Ilitch will be greatly missed across Michigan as he touched the lives of many people throughout the State. Mr. Ilitch is survived by his wife of 63 years, Marian; 7 children, Denise, Ron, Michael, Jr., Lisa, Atanas, Christopher, and Carole; 22 grandchildren; and 3 great-grandchildren.

I cannot express enough the impact Mr. Mike Ilitch had on the city of Detroit and the State of Michigan. He was truly a treasure to our community and an example of the American Dream. His passion, dedication, and leadership will be missed. However, I am confident his legacy will continue to inspire others to take action to strengthen the city of Detroit, the community he served with his whole heart.

Madam President, I rise in defense of Michigan seniors and working families and to speak on the nomination of Representative Tom Price to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a Member of this body, it is my duty to only support a nominee for this position if I trust that he or she will put the health and wellness of American families first.

Representative Price has failed to convince me that he will do this. As a doctor, he should be familiar with the Hippocratic Oath. Reciting this oath is a rite of passage for our physicians and our Nation and across the globe. While it is known most widely for its overarching message of ``do no harm,'' I wish to recite a passage from the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath that should resonate with all of us. It reads:

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart--a

cancerous growth--but a sick human being--whose illness may

affect the person's family and economic stability. My

responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to

care adequately for the sick.

We should all heed these words. Health care is deeply personal. Some of the most important decisions Americans will ever make will be with the advice of their loved ones and their doctor.

Health care affects our families and the economic stability of our families. Quality, affordable health care can literally be the difference between life and death. A Medicare system that works for seniors can be the difference between a retirement with dignity and having to spend their golden years in poverty.

When it comes to our Nation's seniors, Congressman Price has crafted extremely dangerous proposals that would end Medicare as we know it. He has introduced legislation that would turn Medicare into a voucher system, increase the eligibility age for seniors to enroll in the program, and lead to increased drug costs.

Our Nation's seniors worked hard their entire lives and they deserve a dignified retirement--not higher drug costs or a voucher that could be worth less each and every year, putting a significant strain on their fixed budget. We must honor our promises to current and future retirees by refusing to confirm any HHS nominee who is not fully committed to protecting our seniors and ensuring they have the health care they need. We need a Secretary who wakes up every morning thinking about how to provide the best care possible to as many Americans as possible and as affordably as possible.

I am concerned that Representative Price sees our health care system as a profit center, a profit center for special interests and a profit center for himself. He has proposed dangerous plans to end critical investments that make our health care system better so he can give large tax breaks to some of his wealthy friends.

The American people should be confident that the men and women leading Federal agencies are thinking about the bottom line of taxpayers and not themselves. We must be faithful stewards of taxpayer dollars. I wish to remind my colleagues that Medicare and Medicaid spend far less on overhead and operations than private insurance.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that the Republican budget plan that includes repealing the Affordable Care Act would increase our national debt by upward of $9 trillion over the next decade. Yes, that is trillion with a ``t.'' We must continue efforts to cut waste and inefficiencies across the Federal Government, especially in health care. Increasing efficiencies allows us to invest in what works.

Medicare and Social Security are two of the most popular Federal programs ever created, and they are popular for a reason. They work. They work for seniors, they work for the disabled, they work for orphans, and we should too.

When I hear from Representative Price that he wants to fundamentally change Medicare and Medicaid and implement health care reforms that will limit care for American families, this is something I cannot and will never support.

Representative Price has introduced proposals to cut over $1 trillion from Medicaid that will jeopardize care for millions of low-income working Americans, senior citizens that require long-term care in nursing homes and individuals with disabilities. This is not a vision of America that I see, and it is not one I can possibly support.

We need to find a bipartisan path forward. We need to invest in prevention, increased efficiencies, embrace technologies like telemedicine, and capture the full potential of promising medical research, like precision medicine, to yield better care and at lower costs. We need to make it easier for small business owners who want to do right by their employees to provide them with coverage. We can strengthen our health care system without cutting the quality of care by investing in commonsense changes to save money. For example, Medicare spends $1 out of every $3 on diabetes treatment. While the total economic cost of diabetes is estimated to be $245 billion per year, I have

introduced bipartisan legislation that allows Medicare to enroll individuals at risk for developing diabetes into medical nutrition therapy services proven to decrease the likelihood they will develop diabetes.

I have also introduced bipartisan legislation that expands Medicare's use of telemedicine, increasing access for patients in rural and underserved communities, and bringing down future health care costs by ensuring patients get the preventive care they need to stay healthy.

Instead of focusing on these critical challenges or sensible solutions, Representative Price wants to move us backward and push policies that could leave 30 million Americans without health insurance.

We can't look at this as simple budgetary math, we are talking about 30 million of our friends, family members, and neighbors, including over 800,000 Michiganders--Michiganders who could once again face bankruptcy and loss of their economic security just because they get sick.

We live in a nation where historically the No. 1 cause of personal bankruptcy has been medical debt. That is simply unacceptable in this great country of ours. Whether we are policymakers or physicians, we should adhere to the central tenet of the Hippocratic Oath of ``do no harm.''

Our Nation's seniors, children, and all hard-working Americans deserve a Secretary of Health and Human Services who will, at the very least, do no harm. Representative Price is not that person.

It is for this reason that I have decided I will vote against his nomination for the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the nomination of Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education. My reason is very simple: Mrs. DeVos lacks the experience required to oversee the Department of Education, an agency that serves over 50 million public school children across America.

Despite spending many years giving hundreds of millions of dollars to back political candidates and ballot initiatives that support unproven education policies, she remains shockingly unfamiliar with Federal law and even some very basic education concepts. Educating our children is an incredibly important job, and we need someone who is experienced, prepared, and well qualified to lead the Department of Education.

As I have said before, Mrs. DeVos has no experience in public education at any level, not as a teacher, not as an administrator, not as a student, not as a parent, not as a school board member, and not even as a borrower of public loans for college.

Ask any parent; our children are what we hold most dear. It only makes sense that the individual whom we entrust with our children's education should have at least some--some--experience in public education. Mrs. DeVos has absolutely no experience--I repeat, no tangible experience--with neighborhood public schools. In fact, her only experience in education is her work lobbying for the transfer of taxpayer money to private schools.

She has also pushed for the rapid expansion of charter schools without sufficient accountability to parents and to students, which brings me to her track record in my home State of Michigan. Mrs. DeVos has pushed for school vouchers to send our public tax dollars to private schools. Her staunch advocacy for the use of taxpayer funding for private and charter school systems earned her the nickname as the ``four-star general of the pro-voucher movement.''

The vast majority of children in Michigan and in the United States attend neighborhood public schools. Voucher programs rob these children of the resources they need to receive high-quality education near where they live. Michigan voters soundly rejected her plan, and we cannot--I repeat, we cannot--put her in a position to push for voucher programs on a national scale that will weaken our neighborhood schools and will weaken, in particular, our rural schools.

Let me be clear: I support innovative models for improving our education system but only when those models are proven to work. For example, I worked hard to ensure that all children have access to the skills and education that are vital to joining the modern workforce and competing in today's global economy. I introduced legislation that will reduce the price tag for higher learning by allowing students to complete college-level courses while they are still in public high school.

The Making Education Affordable and Accessible Act will help students save time and money as they kick-start their careers through a very personalized curriculum. Whether an early-middle college program or a dual and concurrent enrollment program, these models help traditional public school students save money and get ahead by earning college credits while they finish their high school education.

These programs are typically run by a local school district or an intermediate school district and are offered at little or no cost to the student. They also help students identify their major or interest area sooner so that they can complete their college degree and graduate as much as 1 year earlier. Across the State of Michigan, students are participating in more than 90 early and middle college programs, programs that are proven to significantly increase high school graduation rates.

Jobs for the Future found that, nationally, 90 percent of early college students graduate high school versus 78 percent nationally. This is just one example of the kind of innovative approach with proven results that policymakers should support to improve education outcomes.

Education reform must be driven by data and validated outcomes and not by political ideology. Our primary focus must always be on increasing opportunities for the millions of students in our neighborhood public schools. Given Mrs. DeVos's history of supporting policies that undermine traditional public schools and the communities they serve, I do not think she would act in the best interests of American students.

Michigan has been devoted to great public education for generations, a commitment that stretches back to even before the founding of our State. Some of our State's earliest pioneers, including my ancestors, settled under the guidance of the Northwest Ordinance, which stated that ``schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'' Our Nation has strived to live up to this creed ever since, honoring the fundamental truth that all of our children have the right to an education no matter who they are, where they live, how much money their parents have, or how they learn.

All levels of government--State, local and Federal--share the responsibility of ensuring that our children have access to quality education. In addition to providing significant Federal dollars to local school districts, the Federal Government plays a critical role in preventing discrimination and creating opportunity.

Federal education laws play a vital roll in ensuring that all students have equal access to learning opportunities, laws like the landmark 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.

Before the enactment of IDEA, too many of our children with disabilities were denied the chance to learn from our broader communities. Likewise, our broader communities were denied the chance to learn from these youth and the extraordinary perspectives and contributions they offer to American society.

Now, thanks to IDEA, 6.5 million of our children, or 13 percent of all public school students, are not condemned to a life of isolation or mere accommodation. Instead, Federal law ensures that every child has access to the resources he or she needs to become productive and included members of our increasingly diverse 21st-century society.

IDEA assists public schools with offering high-quality special education and early intervention services for children with disabilities from birth to age 21. As a result, IDEA is responsible for millions of youth with disabilities graduating from high school, enrolling in college, and finding jobs as valuable participants in the American economy.

But IDEA will not enforce itself; it is the responsibility of the Department of Education and its leadership to monitor, evaluate, and provide technical assistance to States, making sure that our schools are offering learning opportunities that meet every student's needs.

It is the responsibility of the Senate to determine whether Mrs. DeVos can carry out this task and live up to the creed of ``forever encouraging'' education. Unfortunately, Mrs. DeVos has demonstrated little comprehension of the Federal role in protecting students with disabilities' equal right to an education. This became evident when she was asked directly about IDEA during her confirmation hearing, and Mrs. DeVos tried to excuse her erroneous answer by saying, ``I may have confused it.'' Every student knows the importance of doing their homework, studying for their exams, and practicing for any class presentations in advance. Every educator knows that the answer ``I may have confused it'' is not a response that leads to a passing grade.

With the stakes as high as they are, it is clear that Mrs. DeVos did not do her homework. She did not study for her potential role. She did not practice for her interview with the Senate committee and, most importantly, the

American people. She has contributed millions of dollars to Republican politicians over the years and probably thought that was the only qualification that she needed. We need to prove to the American people that she is wrong.

I take my responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to provide advise and consent to the President very seriously, and I know my colleagues here in the Senate do so as well. Given Mrs. DeVos's weak performance in her interview before the American people and her inability to demonstrate a basic understanding of key education concepts, I do not think we can give her a passing grade.

As Senators, we do not operate under a model of social promotion under which we pass an unqualified individual to a higher office simply because they showed up. Perhaps this is why Mrs. DeVos's nomination is expected to see the most bipartisan opposition to her confirmation of all of the President's nominations to date.

Mrs. DeVos's response regarding IDEA during her confirmation hearing was not the only response that I found alarming. As the father of two college-age daughters, I am extremely concerned about ensuring that our college campuses provide safe environments where students can learn and grow.

I was shocked by a recent comprehensive report done by one school that found that over 20 percent of female undergraduates experienced unwanted sexual contact. Sadly, this problem is not confined to one school. It is a public safety and health crisis that we must immediately take action to address.

The Department of Education has taken important first steps to combat the prevalence of campus sexual assault by opening investigations in over 200 schools and publishing guidance to ensure that universities are affording students title IX protections, the freedom from discrimination on the basis of sex and freedom from sexual violence.

Mrs. DeVos apparently has a different reaction to the threats many young students face while pursuing their higher education. As we saw during her confirmation hearing, she said it is ``premature'' for her to say if she will choose to uphold the Department of Education's guidance on preventing sexual violence. This is completely unacceptable to me as a Senator representing over 500,000 undergraduate students attending one of Michigan's outstanding colleges and universities, and this is completely unacceptable to me as a father.

It is also unacceptable in the eyes of over 1,000 graduates of the same school in Michigan that Mrs. DeVos attended herself: Calvin College. Calvin College alumni from the class of 1947 to the class of 2020 sent my office an extensive petition expressing their deep concern with Mrs. DeVos's nomination. In their letter, these alumni presented several reasons they oppose Mrs. DeVos's confirmation. Specifically, they expressed concerns that she does not understand or support the many Federal policies--like IDEA and title IX--that she would be required to enforce. They wrote: ``This is especially concerning given that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and title IX, which ensure that all students' educational experiences are free of discrimination that impede learning, are not of value to Mrs. DeVos.'' I cannot agree more with her fellow alumni.

My office has received over 8,000 calls in opposition to the nomination of Betsy DeVos, and I am sure my colleagues have also heard from thousands of their own constituents all across this country. The American people are making their voices heard, and they are telling the Senate that Mrs. DeVos is not the right choice to lead the Department of Education. I urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents who are forcefully--forcefully--rejecting Mrs. DeVos's misguided vision for neighborhood public schools in America.

I will be standing with the people of Michigan, and I once again call on my colleagues to join the bipartisan opposition to Mrs. DeVos's nomination. Our children's future depends on it, and for their sake, please vote no.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the nomination of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. The position of Secretary of State was one of the original four Cabinet positions created by President George Washington.

Even after we declared, fought for, and won our independence as a new country, our Founders knew that this world is interconnected. They understood that what we needed was to engage with other countries and to manage our affairs all across the world.

Our first Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, had previously been our Minister to France, our closest ally at the time of our Nation's founding.

Today, the role of Secretary of State is as important as ever. We need a Secretary who will reassure our allies, project strength and competence around the world, and push back against the President's worst impulses.

Having reviewed his qualifications and testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am unfortunately convinced that Mr. Tillerson is not the right person to lead the State Department and to represent the United States abroad.

Mr. Tillerson has spent decades at ExxonMobil, where he rose through the ranks from an engineer to chairman and CEO. We should value hard work and success in the private sector, but we should also ask what the President's nominees were working toward. Mr. Tillerson's success at Exxon in large part can be attributed to deals he struck and connections he made with Russian plutocrats and government officials, including Vladimir Putin.

Over the years, Mr. Tillerson's views toward Vladimir Putin have been, in a word, flexible. Mr. Tillerson has always put Exxon first, cozying up to Putin's authoritarian regime when it suited his own business interests.

In 2008, he spoke out against the Russian Government's disrespect for the rule of law and its judicial system, but in 2011, after reaching a $500 billion deal with the Russian state-owned oil company, he changed his views.

Under Vladimir Putin, the Russian Government silences dissent. They murder political rivals and journalists. Many of Putin's political opponents have been poisoned or shot. Since 2000, at least 34 journalists have been murdered in Russia, many by government or military officials.

Mr. Tillerson was awarded Russia's Order of Friendship by Putin in 2012--one of the highest honors Russia conveys to foreigners.

When Congress was working in a bipartisan manner to enact sanctions on Russia for its illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, ExxonMobil was lobbying against the bill under the leadership of Mr. Tillerson.

During his confirmation hearing, his answers demonstrated either a lack of understanding or a willful ignorance of the destabilizing role Russia plays around the world.

Last year I traveled to Ukraine and Estonia, countries that are on the frontline of Russian aggression. They are genuinely concerned about President Trump's desire to embrace Russia. I heard firsthand how important the support and presence of the United States is to our allies in the Baltics.

In recent years, Russia's belligerence has only grown. Russia has conducted a cyber attack against Estonia, seized territory in Georgia, kidnapped an Estonian border guard, and illegally annexed Crimea. Russian military patrols have approached NATO member territory and have come recklessly close to U.S. military vessels. These irresponsible actions can have severe, dangerous consequences.

What should be most disturbing to any American is that last year Russia interfered with our election to undermine public faith in our democratic process. The intelligence community reported that Vladimir Putin himself ordered the interference--a significant escalation of Russian attempts to sow chaos in the West.

I recognize the President's right to choose his appointments to the Cabinet, but, as the Senate provides its advice and consent, there are still too many unanswered questions for me to support this nomination. We still have not seen President Trump's tax returns, breaking a 40- year tradition adhered to by nominees of both parties. This lack of transparency means that we don't know about the Trump family's possible past and current business ties to Russia. What message do we send to our allies if the Secretary of State and potentially even the President have a history of significant business dealings with a corrupt regime? How will this impact our moral authority as a country to take action against corruption worldwide?

The Secretary of State is the U.S. Ambassador to the world. It is essential that the Secretary is someone who can provide unquestioned leadership and represent American values. There must be no question that the Secretary of State is acting in the best interest of the United States and is willing to take strong action to advance our interests. He must put the American people first and not his former shareholders and friends in the Exxon boardroom.

I am concerned that Mr. Tillerson will prematurely lift the sanctions that have been put in place against Russia. Sanctions are not meant to be permanent, but they should never be removed until they have achieved their purpose.

When our Secretary of State looks at a map of the Baltic region, we need a statesman who sees allies that contribute to NATO, not a new opportunity for offshore drilling.

The Senate must ensure that we are a moderating voice and are approving moderating voices in the Trump administration.

I supported the nominations of Secretary Mattis to lead the Department of Defense, Secretary Kelly to lead the Department of Homeland Security, and Ambassador Haley to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and I supported these individuals because I believe they will serve as a positive influence against the worst instincts and erratic tendencies of President Trump and his political advisers.

America must stand by its allies and serve as a shining example of democracy. I cannot support a Secretary of State nominee if there is any doubt as to whether they will be a strong, independent voice within the Trump administration. The events of the past week have made the need for such leadership abundantly clear. That is why I will vote against the nomination of Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.